JONATHAN CHAIT NOVEMBER 9, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The junior Kentucky Senator-elect is a fascinating character. He has deep roots in paleolibertarianism and obviously comes to politics out of an ideological sensibility rather than careerism. Yet his transformation from ideological crusader to hack pol is the most astonishingly rapid sellout I've ever seen. First he just refuses to discuss his beliefs about anything. Then he assures the neocons and Aipac that he won't give them trouble on defense or foreign policy. Now he says he'll fight for his fair share of pork:
He now avoids his dad's talk of shuttering the Federal Reserve and abolishing the income tax. In a bigger shift from his campaign pledge to end earmarks, he tells me that they are a bad "symbol" of easy spending but that he will fight for Kentucky's share of earmarks and federal pork, as long as it's doled out transparently at the committee level and not parachuted in in the dead of night. "I will advocate for Kentucky's interests," he says.
Let me be clear: I think Paul's views are almost completely nutty and reprehensible. It's a good thing, on balance, that he's selling them out. My whole point pertains to the shameless rapidity of the sell-out. He hasn't even taken office yet!
7 comments
Two things, both unrelated to the content (which I essentially agree with). One is a typo in the third sentence: you left out a "most" in "the .. astonishingly rapid". Or you meant "an astonishingly rapid". Second, all the links to comments on your blog just link to the login page, even if the reader is already logged in. I had to click on the title of this post to get here.
- Simon Greenwood
November 9, 2010 at 4:09pm
"I'm shocked, shocked, shocked to find that there a earmarks going on here!" "Mr. Paul, you left your transparent pork at the casino."
- Nusholtz
November 9, 2010 at 4:21pm
Sort of makes you wish for a line item veto, doesn't it?
- stanmvp48
November 9, 2010 at 4:43pm
- Hmm, maybe there's a reason there isn't a gaggle of Senators who embrace paleolibertarianism. But a lot of these wackos never played in the big leagues. Is this a surprising transformation or predictable consequence of losing their amateur status? I only ask because I'm unspoiled by the wicked ways of Washington.
- michaelg
November 9, 2010 at 4:52pm
Well to be fair Matt Tabbi in his brilliant article on the Tea Party farce for "Rolling Stone" predicted this a while ago. He saw the sellout coming fast for all these grass roots "tea party" types. I mean who was really bank-rolling the campaigns?
- MikeB.
November 9, 2010 at 5:50pm
True, perhaps, but I would wait until he's been in the job for a while before passing judgment. I would like put an end to cheap, populist Wall Street bashing by Rand Paul and his ilk. New York state has always had one of the biggest balance of payment deficits with the federal government; it pays much more to Washington than it gets back, largely for the purpose of subsidizing states like Kentucky and Alaska. That largess comes primarily from Wall Street, which avowed libertarians have been happy to spend while biting the hand that feeds them.
- roqabs
November 9, 2010 at 6:58pm
Well, I thought that Rand Paul might dig in his heels a bit, but I wish to say publicly to my longtime friend Tom P, who I met thirty-six years ago when I took courses in philosophy and ethics and religion and formal and informal logic from him that year: you were right, Rand sold out.
- liberal reformer
November 9, 2010 at 8:08pm